- From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2011 15:36:10 -0600
- To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Cc: HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Hi Sam, I wrote: > What was unclear in the "Timeline to Last Call" is that, the phrase > "Jan 22, 2010 - cutoff for escalating bugs for pre-LC consideration" > actually meant that January 22, 2010 was the deadline for all other > situations. Issue 30 didn't even have a bug so I did not consider that > date pertained to Issue 30. ... > If I had known January 22 was the deadline to submit a Proposal for > Issue 30, I would certainly would have met it. But I didn't know that. In trying to follow the Chairs' "Timeline to Last Call", I reminded this task force numerous times that January 22 was the deadline for escalating Pre-Last Call *BUGS*. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2011Jan/0220.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2011Jan/0160.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2011Jan/0066.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2011Jan/0003.html Again, if I had known that January 22 was the deadline to submit a Proposal for issue 30, I would have submitted a proposal for ISSUE 30. I don't miss deadlines. I meet them. I will honor the February 22 deadline and submit the proposal to reopen ISSUE 30 on the 21st. I trust that the Chairs will take the miscommunication conveyed in the "Timeline to Last Call" into consideration. Best Regards, Laura On 2/17/11, Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Sam, > > In September you advised me, > > "My recommendation: take your time. Build your case. Most of all, do > not assume that you will get multiple opportunities to do this." > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Sep/0493.html > > I took that to heart and have been trying to heed your advice. > > What was unclear in the "Timeline to Last Call" is that, the phrase > "Jan 22, 2010 - cutoff for escalating bugs for pre-LC consideration" > actually meant that January 22, 2010 was the deadline for all other > situations. Issue 30 didn't even have a bug so I did not consider that > date pertained to Issue 30. > > My focus was on: > > "Feb 23, 2011 - every issue has at least one Change Proposal > Consequences of missing this date: issues will be closed without > prejudice and marked POSTPONED; can be reconsidered during LC or for a > later version of HTML." > > If I had known January 22 was the deadline to submit a Proposal for > Issue 30, I would certainly would have met it. But I didn't know that. > I was taking my time. Building my case. > > Best Regards, > Laura > > On 2/17/11, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote: >> On 02/17/2011 01:33 PM, Laura Carlson wrote: >>> Hi Sam, >>> >>>>> Hopefully that will allow enough time for the HTML Working Group to >>>>> evaluate the proposal, the reverse the decision, and instate longdesc >>>>> into the spec before Last Call. >>>> >>>> Based on what I have seen, I do believe that you have enough >>>> information >>>> to reopen the issue. That being said it is my continued position[4][5] >>>> that all escalations after Jan 22 are to be treated as LC issues. >>> >>> Issue 30 was escalated February 6, 2008. >>> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/30 >> >> ... and closed 13 Aug 2010. >> >>> The request would be to reopen that previously escalated issue and >>> resolve it before last call based on new information. >> >> If that request were to come in today, I would treat that as a request >> to reopen the issue on 2011 Feb 17, and therefore as a Last Call issue. >> >>> Is that possible? >> >> In short, I would oppose such an issue from being treated as a pre-LC >> issue. >> >> I'll be blunt. What I am about to say is with my co-chair hat on, but >> only representing 1 of 3 co-chairs: >> >> Laura: the work you are now doing is excellent. To everybody who feels >> that the decision was wrong or even hasty, I truly wish that even one of >> you had presented even a fraction of what Laura has now gathered. In >> August of 2010, the discussion had been going on for 2.5 years. Since >> then yet another half a year has passed. If you had come forward with >> the type of data that Laura has now collected, you certainly would have >> made my life easier. >> >> If we agree to reopen the issue (note: I said IF we chose to do so, even >> though it does seem quite likely at this point) the chairs would >> effectively be saying that there is a reasonable chance that this >> proposal will draw weaker objections than the counter proposal that was >> selected. >> >> But that is ALL that such an action would be saying. We don't ask >> people for objections to proposals or to rebut evidence which isn't even >> brought forward. If we do reopen this issue, it would be with the >> intention that will give everybody adequate time to respond. >> >> Meanwhile, we are asking these same individuals to focus on the open >> issues we need to resolve between now and last call: >> >> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/products/15 >> >> I will also note that there already are a number of issues that we have >> identified as last call issues: >> >> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/products/1 >> >> I think it would be a good idea to explicitly mention the above list in >> whatever announcements are made for last call. >> >>> Thank you. >>> >>> Best Regards, >>> Laura >> >> - Sam Ruby >> >>> On 2/17/11, Sam Ruby<rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote: >>>> On 02/17/2011 03:33 AM, Laura Carlson wrote: >>>>> Hi Janina, >>>>> >>>>> Regrets for the meeting. >>>>> >>>>>> Issue-30 longdesc (any updates?) >>>>> >>>>> Some of us have been working on the change proposal [1]. Ideas for >>>>> improvement on that and on the use cases [2] that require longdesc are >>>>> still very welcome. >>>>> >>>>> I plan to submit the proposal to the HTML working group soon. Per the >>>>> Chairs' timeline [3], every issue needs to have at least one Change >>>>> Proposal by February 23. So on February 22, I plan to submit the >>>>> change proposal to reopen HTML-ISSUE-30. >>>>> >>>>> Hopefully that will allow enough time for the HTML Working Group to >>>>> evaluate the proposal, the reverse the decision, and instate longdesc >>>>> into the spec before Last Call. >>>> >>>> Based on what I have seen, I do believe that you have enough >>>> information >>>> to reopen the issue. That being said it is my continued position[4][5] >>>> that all escalations after Jan 22 are to be treated as LC issues. >>>> >>>>> Best Regards, >>>>> >>>>> Laura >>>>> [1] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/InstateLongdesc >>>>> [2] http://www.d.umn.edu/~lcarlson/research/ld.html#uc >>>>> [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Sep/0074.html >>>> >>>> - Sam Ruby >>>> >>>> [4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Feb/0052.html >>>> [5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Sep/0074.html >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > > > -- > Laura L. Carlson -- Laura L. Carlson
Received on Friday, 18 February 2011 21:36:43 UTC